Steven Powell wins appeal related to sexual deviancy treatment

Steven Powell, 65, was sentenced to five years in prison in August for possession of child pornography detectives found in his South Hill home in 2011 while searching for evidence in the disappearance of daugther-in-law Susan Cox Powell. Steven Powell previously was convicted of voyeurism for taking photographs of neighbor girls, ages 8 and 9, through their bathroom window. Derrick NunnallyStaff reporter

Steven Powell, 65, was sentenced to five years in prison in August for possession of child pornography detectives found in his South Hill home in 2011 while searching for evidence in the disappearance of daugther-in-law Susan Cox Powell. Steven Powell previously was convicted of voyeurism for taking photographs of neighbor girls, ages 8 and 9, through their bathroom window. Derrick NunnallyStaff reporter

Making Steven Powell disclose his sexual history as part of sex offender treatment violates one of his constitutional rights, the state appellate court said Tuesday.

Powell argued in his appeal that being forced to answer questions about his sexual history violated his Fifth Amendment right that protects him against self-incrimination.

The Washington State Court of Appeals agreed.

Powell landed in jail as a spinoff of the investigation into the high-profile disappearance of his daughter-in-law, Susan Cox Powell, a former Puyallup resident.

A three-judge panel for Division II of the state appellate court reversed that order in its opinion Tuesday.

“Powell faces a realistic threat of self-incrimination if he is compelled to reveal his sexual history in the course of court-imposed sexual deviancy treatment,” appellate Judge Linda CJ Lee wrote for the unanimous court.

If prosecutors had been willing to offer Powell immunity, making sure he couldn’t be held accountable for any crimes that might be discussed during treatment, then he’d have to answer sexual history questions, the court said.

Otherwise, according to the opinion, making him give those answers and punishing him for refusing violates his Fifth Amendment protection.